Due to lack of noise in the babble forum I'm going to introduce a new topic:
"What makes a good online RPG?"
Discuss!
ID:194687
 Apr 9 2000, 6:12 am
|
|
On 4/9/00 10:12 am Manifacae wrote:
Due to lack of noise in the babble forum I'm going to introduce a new topic: Tsk. This a world design topic. =) But I digress. I think that a good online RPG/MUD should allow people to do what they want. They want to go kill someone, yeah, they can do that. They want to discover the mating habits of a particular species of carnivorous butterfly, yeah, they can do that too. This assumes, however, that you have a body of several dozen programmers behind you... For the rest of us, what I like to see in a game is relevance to real life. I just love it when I catch onto a punch line (and nary a punch line goes over my head except in extremely obscure cases referring to you-know-what, like a particular Nocturnal Mission which I didn't get until the Nocturnal E-mission part came up... =P). I love it even more when I can relate to a joke or something, because it deals with what's happening here and now. However, the stylings of stand-up comedy no longer appease to my general tastes, mainly because its just plain been-there-done-that. If you hammer away jokes for hours at a time, it gets boring. And then annoying. And then frustrating. A particular game for the PSX, and its horrible incarnation on the N64, which I won't mention any names ([cough]Gex[cough]), totally p'd me off after I was being subjected to hours of the same phrases repeated over and over again. But I do have to admit, the cracks at Jerry Garcia made me laugh time and time again. "Note to self: Don't drink tap-water at Jerry Garcia's." (I doubt anyone who hasn't heard the story of the police raid on his house would get this one... suffice to say that Mr. Garcia mistook something for a toilet when he was off in induced La-la Land.) The obscure jokes always get me howling. That is, if I can still decipher them. A joke about Bill Clinton that hides itself completely isn't a joke; its an excuse to be funny. Sometimes, once you finally "get" them, they're good, but most of the time, I consider them to be bad. (I considered Nocturnal Mission to be "ok", but generally too adult-ish =). Back on topic, I always try to play things that are funny. Regardless. Little sheep chasing after you trying to eat your brains. That's funny. Little people online chasing after you with awls and constantly PKing you. That isn't funny. One game I tried when I first tried to introduce myself into online browser-based MUDs had me dying every 15 seconds. Die, appear, die, appear. Probably the most annoying game I had ever played. Sorry to say it almost fixed me out of the multiplayer game crowd for good. Another thing to remember is that player bases are almost always comprised of teenagers, usually boys, aged 12-18. You have to both make references that boys would find funny, while avoiding the alienation of the equally important and (I can't resist saying this...) friendlier female crowd. Even though I'm probably going to regret this somewhere (no, I don't know WHERE), I think that female players of games actually play the games for fun. Millions of male players, on the other hand, go in to screw up the lives of other players. Thus, though males are your player base, they actually can be the factor that ruins it. Perfect example: I made a map for Starcraft. I then invited some players to join the game on battle.net. When I played the game, I got a mixed response. People who had male-ish names wanted a lot more stuff, such as heroes, teleporters, and who-knows-what, and I specifically made the map to be balanced. Giving people abilities unbalances things. Anyway, the female-ish names, on the other hand, turned out a fairly nice reply, saying what the game is good at, and what I should fix (such as the ability to kill your own units to cheat... that sort of thing). Of course, a couple of the males and a couple of the females were in the opposite categories from the majority, but on the whole, guys were demanding and gals were simply encouraging. Needless to say, I was supportive of the friendlier crowd. So what makes an online RPG? Your player base. What makes your player base? What you define your game to be. What defines your game? You. That allieviates my philosophical views of the world for a while. I'll still probably be able to make up some pretty good things for my IRC sim on Thursday, though, now that I've been inspired in a mostly off-topic post, made by me. | |
This is the first time I will have posted to these boards, but I have been keeping an eye on them out of an interest in Zilal's game Cerulea.
Since what makes a game good is arguably how much fun it is - Zilal I think ya missed a factor that contributes to what Simu or ANY game programer might consider a good game. How much green does it generate? How many people can you get to pay? Can you specialize for a few people and charge out the rear to fund new development? Or do you cater to a broader base and charge a more reasonable amount? Yes, Simutronics has a problem catering to its relatively large customer base. But I think you have to take a step back and realize that even though the customers seem mad, they generally tend to stick around and do nothing more then gripe. When they do leave, they almost always come back at least once. If they don't come back, ten more people have come and filled the void before the steady customer's keyboard has gotten cold. The money keeps rolling in. I find it unbeleaveable that people pay hundreds of dollars for text on a moniter, and thousands for characters. Simu must be doing something right. Because as unbeleaveable as it seems, I pay my monthly fee just like the next guy. Tetris is a good game. Would I pay to play it for hours on end? Nope. Why do I pay to play that Simu game? Because it's always expanding. There are always new things around the corner, and new people to roleplay with. They have a large staff pumping out new code at a fairly rapid rate (considering the difficulties they face). All those programers, they make a lot of green to do what they do. The large client base supports them. There are people who's idea of roleplay differs from mine in Simu's game. This is to be expected in something as large as what they have developed. There are plenty who think just like me too. There might be a game out there where everyone thinks just like me, but what fun would that be? It wouldn't seem real. Diversity is good. At the moment, and I may be wrong, I think Cerulea is a hobby for you J. I really can't imagine anyone being able to compete with a Simu type game as a hobbist, and therefor: Ya have ta have a little show me the money attitude if you want to create something as grand as I know you can J. I'd also like to brown nose a bit and say, I think you are doing a wonderful job with what you have. But wouldn't it be ohh so much better if you could sit at home and play with it all day instead of going to that pesky job of yours to put food on your table. Bear | |
Hello Bear! It's nice to see you here.
Of course, I stand by my philosophy that the best game is the one with the highest percentage of players enjoying themselves (no matter what the reason). Sheep II is obviously a better game than GemStone. Z | |
On 4/11/00 10:34 am Zilal wrote:
Hello Bear! It's nice to see you here. Sure, that might be true for the moment. But... Ever notice that a large number of young folk, when asked, say that their favorite song is one that's only been out for under a year? Granted, my source is the ever vacuous, farce of a network, MTV, but I think you get my point. I asked my cousin what his favorite Sega game is, he said, "Ohh, we have Playstation now." Under your philosophy Pong is the greatest game in the world. Simply because it has been around the longest. That may or may not be true, but remember this: Somehow Gemstone has managed to capture/hoodwink/bushwhack an audience for almost 10 years. Some of those at the start were willing to pay over $1000 a month for the right to play. Enjoyment? I think they got it. Unless, of course, if player's total time spent in there is a masochistic event, then it's not even a game. It's an S$M porn site. Which would you rather have? A nice pretty piece of glass that will scratch and get old like pong? OR a nice timeless (slightly flawed) uncut diamond that can be shaped, molded, and trimmed to last forever like Gemstone? Bear | |
We may just be answering different questions. I don't want to confuse my "what makes a game good" (as in a method of measurement) with "what makes me personally want to play it" (or even with "what makes a game fun for people," one of which may have been what Manifacae was asking in the first place). I certainly like GS more than I like Pong. But if Pong players really do have more fun at their game than GS players have at theirs, I'd have to say Pong is the better game. Millions of dollars in Simu's pockets could not then change the fact that Pong was more fun.
Oh, I'm just jealous you got brownies. Z | |
On 4/9/00 10:12 am Manifacae wrote: This is a difficult question, since it's subjective. Here's my thoughts on what I find enjoyable about many RPGs/MUDs/etc. It's a bit jumbled and, of course, from my perspective. ------------------- I've been playing MUDs since 1988, beta tested DragonRealms and stuck with that game for four years, alpha-beta tested H&X, beta-tested Asheron's Call, alpha-tested a host of others (both graphical & text) which never reached beta, etc. I've done MUD surfing where I'd randomly visit various MU*s. I've stuck with some games for a long time. I've been to some MUDs for only seconds. I started learning how to create my own (in C and LPC) in 1998 because there was nothing out there that was quite what I wanted in a game. ------------------- Here are some notes from my testing of games: I had more fun during the alpha-beta stages of a game than I ever had playing after it went public. In regards to the Big Ones: (Simutronics, Asheron's Call, EverQuest, UltimaOnline) I didn't care for the mechanics of EverQuest, or the PKill nature that developed on UO. Some people love these kinds of systems, but they just weren't for me. For Simutronics, I liked their games up until the player base expanded past 200 players. Once it jumped, things started to fall appart - the systems started failing (lag, abusable mechanics to gain levels/exp etc) and they attracted a less mature audience. For Asheron's Call, the beta-test (while closed) was still a large group of people and it wasn't filtered for maturity or experience. I had fun, but I didn't like some of the mechanics and the overload on my system was a bit much (graphics, 3-D rendering, bandwidth-lag). During the alpha-beta stages of a game I have the most fun I think due to the common interrest that all of us have. We go into a game to discover, report and offer suggestions on fixing things (bugs, problematic areas, etc). The testers are usually very mature, have a background in testing or playing or developing MUDs, and there's a sense of respect that permiates the group. Once a game goes public, if the game is large, the testers find themselves overwhelemed with immature newbies who show no respect to anything (exceptions to power, themselves, etc). The culture changes, the feeling of companionship dwindles, and the tester finds himself no longer relating to the game. It's lost it's magic. If it's a small game, the tester can usually remain as a social figurehead for a long time. Someone that folks can respect, come to for advice, etc. This tends to change over time as more people arrive, but it can last for awhile. In the end, the tester either becomes part of the staff or moves on (in my case, I've always moved on). ------------------------ As far as what I think makes a good game... - Consistancy. - Small player base. - Mature player base. - Realistic in the meaning that the game conforms to it's own laws. In the end, it's the players that shape what sort of game you have. My ideal doesn't match with anyone else on this planet but if I create this ideal, it will attract others that have similar ideals. So the only advice is to create a game that you'd want to play, the way you want it. Take any suggestions seriously, but don't just give in to flames or cries for change. See if it's something you'd want to see in the game as well. You have the total picture in your head - if the suggestion doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. In a sense, even if I create my perfect game I'll never be happy playing in it. It's the social interaction, the respect, and the general atmosphere that I'm looking for. As the game designer, I could conceiably play in this sort of environment incognito, but never as myself - and if I was incognito, I'd be undermining the very things I developed the game for - if someone found out, I'd loose all respect and trust. Not much of an alternative :). | |
Ah, yes. In a nutshell, that explains my post much better, and presents some new topics that I'd like to expand on =)
First of all, you say that a small player base is good. I agree. But in some cases, that might be bad, especially in the case of a set list of personas to choose from. If someone wants to switch characters, they will probably want to switch to something that someone else already owns. This gets them frustrated and disheartened (for obvious reasons), and eventually leads to their departure. And then you've lost a large percentage of the total player base ;-). Also, if a game is designed to be able to accomodate a large player base, then a small base will have a very very very wide-open area to work with. This could have good or bad side effects. The good part is that people get to enjoy exploring the world and seeing the sights the designer has to offer. The bad part is that people will generally be more inclined to fly off on their own, never to associate with others due to vast distances. In addition, they'll be able to conquer most of the world and become super-characters in a relatively short time. This leads to boredom, and also eventually departure. So the main factor is designing your world based on the expected popularity. If you design a strict roleplaying thing, such as a full-fledged IRC sim*, you would want to maintain a small player base, and because you can monitor who comes or goes, you will be assured of having a good player base. Cerulea would be a prime example of this sort of thing. On the other hand, most MUDs involving the destruction and general killing of monsters and other players need a huge player base. You'll need to put some blockers in there, such as camping restrictions on public areas, but generally, anything goes, and it'll be self-supportive. If someone disagrees with something, tell them to politely ask them to stop, then contact the offender. If you receive a lot of complaints, then ignore them. Basically, MUDs of this sort are basically designed as a quick source of enjoyment, not really as a source of good roleplayers and good people who follow the rules. Haven will sort of be a mixture of a moderated game and the above paragraph. Thus, the player base should take into consideration the expected popularity and also the game size. If you make a huge map, and you get a small player base, people will get rich quick, and then bored. If you make a small map, and get a huge player base, then people will pick an area, camp there, and kill anyone who comes nearby, and space will generally be crowded, with everyone dying every couple of minutes, or even seconds. Pick a map size based on how big you think your game will be. If you think you can, a small player base won't get bored if the sheer size of the world is greater than what they couldn't possibly explore in a week, or even a month. Either pick a huge huge huge map, or a medium sized one, for small player bases, or huge maps for large player bases. Very big maps for large player bases aren't as necessary because it promotes cooperation. Just don't make them too small. Those are my thoughts. Deny them if you will. =) * -- Of which I am a part of... it's a sci-fi, non-Star Trek sim (wow, is there such a thing?! =); if you want to come look at it, you can email me (here, if you didn't already know =), or apply for seats at http://blazer.hispeed.net/ues-jupiter/. I'm the Chief Engineer, if you wanted to know. | |
Since what makes a game good is arguably how much fun it is, and since fun is subjective, I think the game with the highest percentage of players thoroughly enjoying themselves is the best. In my mind, the best way to achieve a high percentage is to pick one "type" of player--hardcore roleplayer, PK fanatic, etc.--and cater to it. So a good RPG is one that is sure of what kind of game it wants to be and what kind of player it wants to attract, and works towards that.
Ergo I don't think a game where you can go OOC all you want and kill people left and right is any better than a totally in-genre game where you're expected to be social--as long as both games bill themselves as what they are.
But a game that bills itself as an immersive medieval roleplaying experience while allowing names like Misternitro and Kewlboarder is going to get bad marks in my book. So is a game that tries to appeal to two (or more) fundamentally incompatible types of players together. It's usually impossible to make a game that caters to different types without segregating them or sacrificing service to one or all of them.
I know I never give my Simu soapbox time to gather dust, but GS does make an easy bad example. The game is billed as a cooperative, social, work-together-to-achieve endeavor. But the game systems make it much easier and faster to advance if you do it by yourself. The game is now drowning in characters who never talk to anyone, never stop to help a dead body, just camp and kill and level and earn, allowing them the best access to the game's rewards. This is obviously a little distressing to the players who came for the advertised environment. And the powerhunters get pissed now whenever Simu tries to make a change that favors working together. The company has a very large, diverse and almost uniformly disgruntled customer base.
Of course there are going to be unhappy customers no matter what you do. And there may be a magic formula whereby a game can please all kinds of players. But I believe a game that picks a specialty and sticks to it will have the happiest players... and thus be the best game.
I am making Cerulea for the type of player I am (convenient, no?). The game will still attract players who like things a little different than I do. There will be some difficult decisions in the future about whether it will be better to change the game a little in their interest or keep it in line with what I like best.
Z